Book Review: Sex at Dawn

The Savage Love podcast pointed me to the book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. It takes a critical look at traditional assumptions about men and women and their actual behavior when it comes to sex and relationships. If monogamous marriage is the ideal, then why does it fail with such alarming frequency and make even a lot of the people who stick with it unhappy?

The book provides the following answer: men and women are not naturally monogamous and centuries of being in denial about this has culturally put our psyche and sex drives through the wringer. The authors quite convincingly posit that scientists throughout the centuries have been guilty of ‘Flinstonization’: projecting their opinions into the past and distorting things to make them fit the worldview of their own era, which generally was seen as far superior. For instance: primitive (‘savage’) cavemen were supposed to have lived short and violent lives. Likely not true: since groups of hunter-gatherers had large areas to forage, with a plentiful supply of food, there would have been no need for violence. The short life-span is a statistical distortion caused by adding child mortality into the total average, dragging the life expectancy of adults way down. A very similar thing happened with the calculation of how tall people used to be thousands of years ago: not as big of a difference as is now generally assumed. We did not come as ‘far’ as we may want to think.

The pop culture cliché of a caveman dragging a woman into his cave by her hair is baseless. The authors theorize (again, quite convincingly) that it is far more likely that men and women lived in a sort of commune, on equal footing if not in a matriarchy, in which both men and women had various sexual partners at any one time and raised children together. The fact that it wasn’t clear who the father was in any given case, meant the children belonged to the group as a whole and everyone felt responsible for them. There are some interesting indicators for this. Why, for instance, do men generally last a lot shorter in the sack than women, the man needing recuperation when the woman is just getting warmed up? And why are women a lot more vocal than men, as if to call attention (and maybe further partners) to the activity going on, even if in the wild this would have been at the risk of attracting predators as well? And at the risk of getting too graphic: why are the heads of penises designed to suction out the semen previous partners may have left behind and why does semen have elements in it that would neutralize that of another man while protecting the own team from one that might drop by shortly after? This kind of sperm competition is generally seen in polygamous species.

The coming of agriculture and personal possessions to be passed on ‘within the family’ changed a lot of things and not in a good way: to make sure the children doing the inheriting were not ‘bastards’, women suddenly needed to be controlled, their sexuality vilified or simply denied. Masturbation – a natural and even (by current research) healthy drive – was seen as Evil for centuries, through various forms of rationalization by some deeply twisted ‘scientists’. Reading the chapters about this, you can’t help but feel angry at the physical and mental torture people went through in the name of pious morality.

That’s not to say the authors end the book with a plea for us all to run into the woods and resume living in communes like those we lived in thousands of years ago. Culturally speaking, in any case, we are too far removed from those roots. But they point out that society has expectations that run contrary to our natural drives and that this has to be acknowledged if nothing else. Being honest about our drives and feelings can actually help marriages and save people a lot of heartache.

Example of a relationship going horribly wrong: a woman may fall in love and couple up with one type of guy while on the pill, go off the pill to get pregnant and then find her hormones uninterested in her partner but interested in an entirely different type of guy. Often by this time there will be a marriage and kids to deal with. Meanwhile, her partner may feel frustrated by his lack of sexual variety and lose sexual interest in his wife. Happiness does not ensue.

Sex at Dawn is a fascinating read and I have just scratched the surface in this review. (For instance, I didn’t get to mention that, while lesbians, gays and straight men have a generally pretty fixed sexuality past the formative age, (mostly-)straight women’s sexual response turns out to be highly unpredictable and all over the map. And don’t get me started on the Bonobo’s…) The book is written in a very accessible way and though the middle bit feels just a touch dry compared to the rest, there is humor and a large amount of interesting factoids to keep you reading. (Random quote: ‘Darwin says your mother’s a whore.’) Sex is not always the big deal it is made out to be and confusing love and sex can lead to dramatic complications for all involved. Open discussion is key. So: discuss. This book makes an excellent starting point for that.

Note: The paperback edition of Sex at Dawn will be published in June.

(Written for the ABC Blog.)

Movie Review: Scream 4

‘New Decade, New Rules’ the poster for Scream 4 claims. But then again, the poster for Scream 3 claimed: ‘Rules of a trilogy: Chapter one sets the rules. Chapter two bends the rules. But in the finale...forget the rules.’ This did not prevent the ‘final’ chapter in the trilogy from rehashing rules all over the place and being the least fresh. Scream 4 promises a reassessment of the current state of horror-movies and there are indeed references to recent humorless, gory horror-porn franchises, like the Saw series. However, in between an impressively ‘meta’ opening (commenting on horror that comments on itself) and a pretty inventive – if not totally satisfying – ending, the viewer gets more of the same ol’, same ol’. Sidney returns to Woodsboro to promote a book about how she got over the traumatic experience of the first three (!) killing sprees she lived through. Cue a killer (or killers) wearing the infamous Ghostface mask, who run(s) around after hysterical teenagers with a sharp knife, slaughtering them if at all possible, occasionally pausing to make menacing phone-calls in a gravelly voice.

The main ‘new rule’ is said to be that ‘the unexpected is now expected’. Which doesn’t really mean much, when you think about it, since it’s circular. Tension is created here as it is in most horror movies: by toying with expectations. There are some set-ups that don’t pay off, some that do and there are some surprise shocks thrown in, all to keep the viewer a little off-balance and enjoying their ride on the rollercoaster. It’s skillfully executed, but it doesn’t feel like the Scream franchise is treading new ground, mixing somewhat predictable pop culture references, with self-referential laughs and violence. Much like in Scream 3, the humor and scares tend to step on each other’s toes, causing some jokes to fall flat and the violence to lack impact. It doesn’t help that the movie fails to make you care about the new characters - who make some amazingly dumb decisions - and makes the returning trio of Sidney (Neve Campbell), Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courteney Cox) less relatable than they were in the original movies. It’s hard to get invested in a horror movie if you don’t actually care who lives and who dies. To its credit however, you do keep playing the ‘who is the killer’ guessing game throughout and don’t feel cheated by the answer.

Considering that the movie seems to be treading water, it’s surprising that screenwriter Kevin Williamson (Dawson’s Creek, The Vampire Diaries) pitched this movie as the first of a new trilogy. It seems to indicate that he still has some new tricks up his sleeve. If so, he’d better start pulling them out in greater amounts for the next chapter or risk the audience getting too bored. The movie had a so-so opening and it’s not clear if he will get the opportunity to spread out the plot in the way he intended to do. What does seem clear, is that the franchise lives or dies with the writer in this case: Williamson was barely involved in Scream 3 and only partly in Scream 4, resulting in a noticeably less tight script, the balance between funny and scary being off in ways that did not seem intended and in the dialogue being less sharp.

The movie is getting relatively good scores on the IMDB from ‘regular’ viewers, who I imagine must mostly be new to the series (so it feels fresh to them) or dedicated fans, sticking by their franchise. In any case, this could indicate there’s more life in the Scream saga yet, as long as it manages to make money.

NITPICKS (very mild spoilers): We have had four killing sprees now, perpetrated by quite a few separate killers, if you add them up. Where did all these people get the training to sneak around without a sound and the ability to disappear into thin air when someone looks away for a second? Is there a Ghostface School of Murder somewhere, teaching these tricks? Why would you go out on the town and get drunk, knowing there’s a killer after you? Why – in gun-happy America – doesn’t any of the victims-to-be grab a gun and just shoot that Ghostface motherf*cker already? Wouldn’t at least Sidney be carrying one around at all time, just in case? And speaking of guns: giving someone who has his/her finger on the trigger of a gun an electric shock, would result in the finger cramping up and pulling said trigger. You’ll see why this is problematic if you go see the movie.

Television Review: Fringe (Seasons 1-3(ish))

As seems to happen with a lot of series, Fringe didn’t find its footing straight away. It appeared to be a half-hearted X-Files rip-off, with science that stretched believability to the breaking point and with a less charismatic cast. The first episodes focus on the formation of the Fringe team. Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) gets drafted into the Fringe division of the FBI, looking into events that seemingly defy explanation. Borderline crazy scientist Walter Bishop (John Noble) is picked to aid her, who is looked after by his son Peter (Joshua Jackson) and assisted in the lab by agent Astrid Farnsworth (Jasika Nicole). Olivia’s boss, her FBI partner and a shady lady who runs the Massive Dynamic science corporation complete the main cast.

Initially the series jumps from strange event to strange event without quite making connections between them, while awkwardly handling its leads. Tradition seems to demand romantic tension between Olivia and Peter but it’s barely there. Peter and Astrid aren’t given much to do, Walter seems a collection of tics and oddness in need of a personality, Olivia is a little flat and her FBI colleagues don’t register much either. The pseudo-science occasionally leads to prolonged bouts of eye-rolling. Example: in one episode Peter succeeds in playing back sound waves supposedly caught in a slightly melted window, forming grooves like those on a record. He is able to recover an actual conversation this way, while the weary viewer just shakes his (or her) head in utter disbelief.

Just as I was about to bail on Fringe, it hooked me and reeled me back in. An overarching plot, which had previously only had been hinted at, comes to the fore near the end of season one and saves the day. As it turns out, there is an alternate reality that has dubious intentions with our version, for reasons too spoiler-filled to get into. This new revelation is spun in such a way that Peter becomes a pivotal part of the plot and Walter becomes a more complex and sympathetic – if very flawed – character. Olivia’s personality gets fleshed out as well, as she discovers a unique aspect of herself. Alas, Astrid still remains a bit one-dimensional until well into season two; no wonder Walter always has trouble getting her name right. Because of the extra layers that the alternate reality story arc brings to the interpersonal relationships all around, the crew starts to feel more cohesive, almost like a family, which allows viewers to emotionally invest in the series.

I am currently watching the first half of the third season and the set-up is creative and interesting: each week the show jumps from one of the two warring realities to the other. So one week will tell a story in ‘our’ universe, the next in the other, then ours again, then the alternate and so on… It is without a doubt the best string of episodes so far. To the relief of fans, Fringe was recently picked up for a fourth season. It was touch-and-go for a while, as the series is struggling in the ratings; the amount of back-story and the playing around with alternate versions of the main characters is the best part of the series, but may also baffle someone who is tuning in for the first time. It will be interesting to see if the show drops some of the more complicated plotlines in order to survive or will continue along the road it is on, focusing on the dedicated fans. The second route would have my preference, as long as the story ultimately gets finished and is not suddenly cut off, as happens all too often with endangered television series. Fingers crossed that Fringe gets to tell the full story it was created to tell.

Television Review: Supernatural (Seasons 1-5)

By all rights, Supernatural shouldn't have made it past a first season. It started off wobbly, without most of the mythology that became such a big part of the series later on. Initial episodes were primarily stand-alone, with the promise of a more overarching story. Each week Supernatural would shamelessly rip off the plot of a classic scary movie, cheerfully including various horror cliché’s. Some of these episodes were good, but a lot of them were decidedly 'blah', not hitting any home-runs in the plotting, writing or acting departments.

The set-up: Sam and Dean Winchester (played by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) are brothers. As kids - Sam was a mere baby - their mother died mysteriously, or to be more precise: burst into flames while floating against the ceiling above Sam's crib. The brothers were dragged around by their father for years, who - looking for an explanation for the impromptu barbecue - turned into a hunter of demons and other infernal beasties. Sam opted out in his teens and enrolled in college, trying to build a normal life for himself, but at the beginning of the series he is dragged back into the family business. Cue the brothers hitting the road in their soon-to-be iconic Chevrolet Impala, looking for their dad and fighting the good fight as they go.

It's not until season two that things start to heat up - the mythology builds on itself and the cast of recurring characters grows a bit. Though the brothers always firmly remain the focus - the 'tough' wise-ass Dean a little more than his sensitive-but-with-a-major-dark-side brother - they also pick up a surrogate father in the shape of fellow ‘hunter’ Bobby Singer (Jim Beaver), giving the series more heart. By season four they even 'adopt' an Angel - yes, an actual Angel - called Castiel (Misha Collins) who starts off intimidating and ends up frequently hilarious, as he tries to interact with humanity.

Though Supernatural started out generic, it gained a distinct personality as it went (somewhere in-between The X-Files and Buffy - The Vampire Slayer), making it a pleasure to watch. The chemistry between the main cast didn't gel straight away, but grew solid over time. And the series became great at poking fun at its own silliness, mostly by way of Dean's sarcastic one-liners, but also through self-aware and occasionally postmodern scripting. At one point a writer turns up who is writing about the brothers’ adventures in the form of a series of pulp novels called Supernatural. (There is a complicated explanation for this, of course.) Consequently, Sam and Dean end up walking among fans of the book-series, during a convention where everyone is impersonating them. The Winchester brothers also come across online fan-fiction based on the books, labeled ‘Wincest’ - which is a phenomenon that, somewhat disturbingly, actually exists. Use your imagination to guess what it entails. To quote Sam: “These people are sick!” To be fair, the writers of the television series are partially to blame for the erotica, as a recurring joke throughout the series is that the brothers are mistaken for a gay couple. Further postmodernism ensues when the brothers leap into the bodies of two actors (called Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles, of course), the stars of a television series called Supernatural. At one point during that episode, actual series creator Eric Kripke makes an on-screen appearance, only to get gunned down in slow-motion.

Over the seasons, the stakes have been raised higher and higher; by the end of season five the Winchesters have both already died at least once, but dying only slowed them down for a couple of episodes on each occasion. Things culminated in a battle between Heaven and Hell, the brothers getting caught at the center of things. It's not surprising to learn that this was supposed to be the ending for the series initially, but Supernatural still did so well it was renewed. Creator Kripke left the show, leaving executive producer Sera Gamble to figure out where to go next. Time will tell if the series has peaked, as it will be hard to beat the dramatic high of seasons four and five. For the moment though, the tongue-in-cheek-yet-serious adventures of the brothers, their substitute dad and the loopy Angel still make for compulsive viewing.

Game Review: Alan Wake

The first two words spoken by the narrator & lead of the X-Box game Alan Wake are ‘Stephen King’, which could be a respectful homage ór a plea to the writer to please not sue the company behind the game (Remedy Entertainment) for so obviously feeding off his ideas. In the game, a bestselling novelist with writer’s block and his girlfriend go on holiday to one of those small, typically American towns that reek of Twin Peaks. There are log-cabins, lumberyards, misty forests and – as it happens – there is an Evil force that lives off people’s creativity. Before long, Wake has a memory lapse, his girlfriend goes missing and shadowy figures that seem to have sprung right out of the pages of one of his own manuscripts are after him in a bad, homicidal way. It’s up to Wake to save his lover, the town and even the world, all while trying to retain his precarious grip on reality.

Mood and story are the main event in Alan Wake. It is a very polished game: it looks great, sounds great and it’s as atmospheric as survival horror games get. Like Silent Hill, Dead Space and The Suffering, this is the sort of game that needs to be played at night with the lights off and headphones on. You will be running through dimly lit streets, factories, abandoned buildings and miles of creepy forest and will soon learn to fear the sudden gusts of wind and mist that signal the arrival of packs of murderous, glowy-eyed rednecks, about to pour themselves at you from the shadows. The game is very clear about one thing: light is good, darkness is bad and the first can be used to beat the latter. Battle in Alan Wake entails pointing a flashlight at an enemy to weaken his bad mojo and then putting a well-aimed bullet or two into his head. Bullets and batteries for the flashlight are both in short supply, so some strategy and a little trial-and-error are necessary. There are also flash-bangs and flares, the first one doing a lot of damage in a short burst, the second one clearing an area around you for a while, handy when you’re in danger of being overwhelmed or want to clear yourself a path. Often the bad guys don’t stop coming and your only option is to fend them off while on the run. The game makes clever use of save points: you are constantly rushing towards the next pool of light – beneath a lamppost or inside a building – and reaching one doesn’t just save you, it also automatically saves your progress. Relief all around.

Manuscript pages – possibly written by yourself at some point – can be found all over the place as you go. They describe people you met or are about to meet and situations you already lived through or upcoming ones you hope you will survive. It effectively deepens your involvement in the story and builds tension – like when you find a page predicting you will face someone with a big chainsaw and then hear the dreaded sound start up in the dark a while later, remembering with a shock what is about to happen.

The original game has a somewhat ambiguous ending – which I won’t spoil – and the story continues in two downloadable titles: The Signal and The Writer. Narratively speaking the two just about cancel each other out, which was presumably done on purpose so someone could just finish the main game and then skip straight to the inevitable full sequel without feeling like they missed something in-between. These expansions get a bit more detached from reality and more playful: you can shine your flashlight on words to make them shimmer and transform them into the thing they signify. For instance: if you see the word ‘bridge’ floating about, you can light it up and let a bridge pop into existence. The game gets creative with this concept. At one point you are walking through a minefield of words, most of them trouble, trying to avoid touching them with your beam, at another you are besieged, running among hills that blast apart when you hit the word ‘light’ (or something similar), bathing the area in cleansing light from a nearby lighthouse.

Alan Wake is a great game for people who like a very linear, controlled experience. A sandbox-game this is not: you can explore areas a little at the risk of getting jumped by enemies, but you can’t get too far off course and there is just one way to go ultimately. Ammo is tightly managed: if you succeed in carrying over ammo from one save point to the next for a while – good for you. But the game makes a habit of regularly taking it all away in a cut-scene, forcing you to rebuild your limited arsenal.

Alan Wake takes itself pretty seriously for the most part, though there is room for humor and most of the characters are good for a laugh, such as Alan Wake’s loudmouthed agent Barry Wheeler and two elderly rockstars who used to be in Viking-themed band called ‘Valhalla’. Some of the more artificial gameplay elements stretch believability. Just who has been leaving stashes of guns, ammo, flares, flashlights and batteries all over the place? The game gives an explanation, but it seems a bit half-hearted. Downright silly and pointless are the coffee-thermoses you can find all over and collect. I am not sure who decided those were a good idea, but they challenge realism for no good reason. Speaking of which, there is one glitch in the animation that is scary but was likely not intended to be: the mouths sometimes look freaky when characters are talking. Especially the jaw of Alan Wake’s girlfriend eerily looks like that of a ventriloquist doll, limply bouncing up and down as she talks. Let’s hope they fix it for the sequel.

I am not sure where else they can take Alan Wake. The unique flashlight-plus-gun concept seems tapped out by the end of the game, so a thorough shake-up of the formula would be needed. And I wonder how much more playing with the line between fact and fiction they can do without the plot entirely disappearing up its own backside. But I had a great time experiencing this game, so I’m curious to find out.

Movie Review: In the Name of the King – a Dungeon Siege Tale

It has been a good long time since I saw a movie as massively, unintentionally cheesy as In the Name of the King. Lured into purchasing it on Blu-Ray as part of a batch offer, I already had my doubts about a film being marketed just on the basis of the lead having been in The Expendables. But seeing Jason Statham’s hunky face on the cover made me walk into the trap regardless: I’m just superficial that way. After the purchase, I took better look at the director and saw the name Uwe Boll, in very tiny print. It was then that I knew for sure I’d been had.

Uwe Boll is known for his ability to make bad movie adaptations of game franchises, such as Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark and Far Cry. They are said to be generic and uninteresting at best, hilariously bad at worst. He once famously challenged his unflagging critics to take him on in the ring and settle their score man-to-man, apparently believing he could prove the quality of his work by punching a critic in the face. To be fair, based on his reputation I had always avoided his movies like the plague and had never given him a fair shake. But going by this movie, I should just have taken other people’s word for it and spared myself two hours of low-budget mediocrity. The whole project is po-faced, misjudged and wobbly in all aspects from acting and script to special effects. Even the passionless soundtrack conspires to makes things drag.

In the Name of the King – a Dungeon Siege Tale is based on a Role-Playing game I know nothing about and stars Jason Statham as Farmer, whose day-job is evident from his name. He has a son and a wife, but not for long, as soon they are both taken from him by the ‘Krug’, who look suspiciously like Trolls and were probably renamed to sound less generic. The Krug have a silly semi-gorilla walk with corresponding sounds, unconvincing bodysuits and never let you forget that there must be an actor inside, feeling very bad for himself. There is a magical mastermind pulling the Krug’s strings (the ever-evil Ray Liotta) and his plan is to take over the land by getting rid of the king (a strangely tightfaced and overly made up Burt Reynolds), with help from the king’s weakling nephew (Matthew Lillard, better known as Shaggy from the Scooby Doo movies). Not to spoil anything, but Farmer stops him. The end.

I have left out some other characters like a magus/magician (the elsewhere admirable John Rhys-Davies) and Farmer’s daddy substitute (the elsewhere fantastic Ron Perlman), but then none of them is especially memorable and they remain firmly 2D, if not 1D. One or two of the minor characters even risk travelling into negative space. It is the script’s fault that people don’t really say the things that would make the most sense in any given circumstance and that what does come out of their mouth sounds stilted, but since Boll is the producer and director, blame still lands on his plate. Watching the movie, I kept being tempted to reach into my television, yank out the script and do a quick rewrite. I also wanted to rewrite the beginning and get rid of a ‘twist’ that was probably intended as gritty and shocking, but really is just severely emotionally misjudged. It sets the wrong tone and shows that the makers are in denial about making a goofy fantasy action movie.

Even though In the Name of the King is very long and feels like it, somehow it doesn’t get around to putting in all the information you need to comprehend what is going on. For instance: there is a baffling group of semi-ninja warriors that just appear in the middle of a battle – on two occasions – without set-up or explanation afterwards. If only Boll had tightened up the story, got rid of some unnecessary characters and scenes, cut out about 30-45 minutes and used the extra budget to invest in a dialogue polish and better special effects… This might have enabled them to make the fight scenes look like more than just a live roleplaying session in the woods. On the other hand, this would probably have meant we would have had to do without the awesomely silly tree-people who swing around on vines and are able to use them to attack people by way of unconvincing computer graphics.

It’s a mystery how Uwe Boll keeps getting the chance to make more movies. There always seem to be people willing to invest some money in his projects – as a tax write-off, perhaps - and some actors willing to spend time hamming it up and chewing the low-budget scenery. I don’t understand why all of the at least somewhat known actors I mentioned didn’t take one look at the script and at Boll’s reputation and ran in the opposite direction. The sounds of agents getting fired must have been everywhere during and after the filming. Beefcake Statham fulfills the stoic hero part as best as he can, given the circumstances, but is a lot more fun in movies where he has a sense of humor than in flicks like this and The Transporter, where he is typecast as a frowning, one-note action man.

To end on a positive note… uhmm… well, I guess some of the computer-generated vistas are actually quite nice and the Blu-Ray picture quality is crisp and clean. That’s pretty much all I can come up with.

Despite this movie being a massive commercial flop, a sequel starring Dolph Lundgren is in the works, once again directed by Uwe Boll. God(s) help us all.

Television Review: Castle (Seasons 1 & 2)

Castle is like a box of chocolates. Not one of those where you don’t know what you’re going to get – far from it - but rather one filled with that one special kind of bon-bon you can’t stop eating ‘just one more’ of, even though it’s empty calories and it will make you feel bloated afterwards. (Yes, I’m gay.) It’s a very entertaining but very formulaic quirky crime-solving series, closely related to Bones and Psych.

In a rather precarious and unbelievable set-up for a continuing series, famous pulp-thriller writer Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion) starts shadowing NYPD detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic). He has recently killed off his cash cow of a main character and is basing his new one (‘Nicki Heat’) on her. He is connected to people in politically high places and to keep them happy, the NYPD is allowing him to follow her around apparently indefinitely. It’s stated that he wants to make all the details in his book ‘authentic’ and this would explain why he needs to be around 24-7 for months on end. As time management goes, this is not the most efficient way of going about things, but since Castle helps Beckett unravel the tangled narrative behind each crime – there are no straightforward murders in this precinct - he proves useful and they grow ever closer.

Their cheery witticisms while hovering over a dead body can come across as somewhat insensitive, but playfulness is what this series is about. I doubt the NYPD deals with things like ‘death by gargoyle’, frozen corpses left lying around and naked, handcuffed, dead ladies covered in caramel sauce on a regular basis. If you are expecting hard-boiled and realistic, you will be disappointed. Though during the first couple of episodes Beckett states a few times that most crime shows are removed from reality and that Rick Castle will now experience how an investigation ‘really’ works, the series is soon employing shortcuts for the convenience of the plot and making your eyes roll. Investigations that would take a huge amount of time get magically condensed and after a complicated intrigue has been brought to light, there is always some evidence to support it – as luck would have it - even though it is often circumstantial and a prosecutor would have a tough time getting a conviction. This doesn’t matter much, as generally the killers are all too easily pushed into a confession. These groan-inducing moments that not only stretch believability but sometimes even fold it into an entertaining balloon animal, don’t spoil the fun, but you start to wonder about some convenient narrative crutches: when will murderers learn not to use their perfectly traceable credit-card to buy stuff they will use for their kill or in the vicinity of their prospective victim around the time of the murder?

The average episode follows this predictable structure: body gets found in odd circumstances - cute scene with Castle in his very expensive loft with sweet daughter and/or cohabitating eccentric mother – he gets called to the murder scene - he and Beckett interview a succession of suspects, buoyed by revelations, imagination and ever-present snippets of evidence – until a slightly more well-known tv-actor than the other interviewees/suspects from the first part of the episode turns out to be the killer. Engaging characters and dialogue keep the recipe from growing stale. Castle’s family set-up is on the verge of being too cute, but generally manages to charm you into submission. The ‘will they or won’t they’ romantic vibe between the two leads also keeps things interesting, though the series doesn’t seem to be in a rush to move this plot-point forward. Sensibly, perhaps, as series from the past have proven that there is really nowhere interesting to go once you couple up your leads (*cough* Moonlighting *cough*). Sure, you can have them get together and break them up maybe once and then still keep them circling each other, but the audience will lose patience. Did anyone really still want Ross and Rachel to even be on the same screen towards the end of Friends?

Nathan Fillion steals the show as a charming wise-ass, the kind of role he seems born to play, whether he turns out to be a space cowboy, a supervillain or a pulp fiction writer. However, the rest of the cast is equally game and a pleasure to watch. If you don’t mind the occasional ‘yeah, right’ moment and can appreciate fun shows that aren’t all that intellectually nourishing, the Castle crowd is a good one to hang out with. A warning about the whistled tune at the beginning of each episode: after watching a couple of episodes in quick succession, it might get stuck in your head. Forever.